[MD] Free Will

[MarshaV]

Hi Steve,

I'm no expert, but I've been exposed to neither/nor logic, as a non-dualistic
logic, through my reading of Buddhist philosophy.  It seems to me it places 
the issue of freewill into the metaphor of horns of a rabbit.  The abstract 
concept is dissolved and one is sent back to awareness/experience.  In 
conversation I would state it just like I did in the sentence.


Marsha  

 
 
 
On Jun 26, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Steven Peterson wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:09 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> How about neither accepting free will, nor rejecting freewill.
>> 
>> Marsha
> 
> Hi Marsha,
> 
> I think that is somewhat what Pirsig does in Lila. He raises the issue
> of free will but doesn't accept either horn of the dilemma as
> traditionally posed. But isn't that the same as denying both horns?
> I'm wondering how one does what you say in conversation. Most people
> would probably say that if you don't accept it you reject it. But if
> the question is one of those "do you still beat your wife?" kind of
> questions,  you can't answer it directly. You either need to back up
> and reconstruct the problem on different terms or change the subject.
> I think Pirsig kind of does both. He resolves the issue by talking
> about freedom instead of free will since he doesn't want to accept the
> metaphysical premise of an independent agent that could be the
> possessor of this free will.
> 
> Best,
> Steve



 
___